Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 115-116. (Budapest, 19869

KISEBB KÖZLEMÉNYEK — ELŐADÁSOK - Ringelhann, Béla: A digitalis 200 éve az orvostörténetben (angol nyelven)

scientists. [4] Stegall found that in every inflammatory disease, like gout, rheumatic fever and hypertrophy of the heart, the heart-rate is slowed down positively effecting the illness (1858). [25] Wunderlich studied the temperature of the body during toxic illnesses and found that the use of the foxglove diminishes the fever caused by typhoid. He comes to the otherwise incorrect conclusion that the foxglove cures fever. [26] The diuretic effect of the herb was not in the foregrund of attention in the middle of the 19th century, during this period physicians were occupied with trying to cure inflammatory diseases. According to Thomas, 30 to 60 hours after taking a dose of Digitalis the temperature of the patient suffering from rheumatic fever, pleuritis or erysipelas drops. ' 'This ailment is similar to typhus, its symptômes are similar, too, so we can never be sure that another rise in temperature would not occur. ' ' [27] Vulpian experimented on animals (1855). so did Drybovszky and Pelikan (1861). Frogs' hearts proved to be good subjects for experiments so they were often used later as well. [28] Kethli and Láng, two Hungarians, published an article on The Effect of the Digitalis on Heart Function in the „Orvosi Hetilap" (Medical Weekly)

. Their experiments in the function of the heart on narcotized frogs and on frogs' hearts (in bell jars) confirmed that the frog's heart responds to the foxglove. Digitalis enhances the contracting force in the ventricle, later when the heart looses strength the contractions become weaker and eventually the heart stops. Experimenting on animals became popular, especially frogs proved to be good subjects. "Digitallin Naivelle" was put on the market and it was discovered in 1870 that the active component found in the foxglove was glycoside. [19] The fiist foxglove poisoning occured in 1863 in Paris, when a homeopathic doctor, de la Pommerais, gave foxglove to a patient, who, as a result, started to vomit, complained of a terrible headache, had a very week pulse and eventually died. The fact that a large amount of foxglove was found in the office of the physician caused suspicion, so thirteen days later the patient was disintered. Extraction was made from the stromach content and the dried gastric ejection on the floor, and given to a frog, a dog and a rabbit, causing a decrease in the heart function of the animals, an increasing pulse-rate, finally total irregularity of the heart and a stop in systolic arrest. This was the first instance, when animal experiments — based on Claude Bernard's methods — were used as evidence in a court. As a result the physician was persecuted. [36] Until the end of the 19th century, while pathology dominated medicine, the therapeutic advantages of the Digitalis were considered with suspicion. In the first half of the century the experiences gained during medical practice were regarded less important. It was considered more important that the opinions of the physician and the pathologist agree at the time of the autopsy. The turning point in medical thinking occured when the history of the illness itself started to be regarded as worthy of attention. [30] It became important that the physician finds out what actually caused the sickness. Withering and his followers used the Digitalis to cure dropsy without knowing what caused it. Was it the rnisfunction of the heart, the kidney, or something else? What were the first symptoms? Did they change during the course of the illness or did they remain the same? Was there only one symptom, or a whole group of symptoms? Did the state of the patient turn to the worse gradually? How long did the process take? In 1827 Bright discovered that dropsy occurs after kidney disease. He treated 33 patients with Digitalis in 1856, but only two of them improved. [31] Later the physician Watson observed that the diuretic effect appeared in cardiac oedema [30], this new idea brought about some outstanding results.. Martinet declares in his book published in 1827 that ' 'the observers should be free prejudice..

. He must see things as they really are, not as he may wish them to be. The duty of